Scripture has something to say about world hospitality. That is to say that strangers are treated as neighbors (not unlike extended family) to be included in our experience with grace and respect. Hospitality is a way of social life for all peoples. The loss of it has led to all sorts of nonsense, including warfare. International meetings are reported in the media with members of delegations shaking hands, posing for photographers in respectful combinations, and expressing good will. In the meantime there may be little done to address the issues that belong to grace, in the acceptance of each other. Acceptance does not mean approval, just as unconditional love does not approve ill conduct in the loved. Even nations, need to understand the concept so to at least diminish conflict and to find ways of living together in our one world in a context of peace on earth. We will not find, and probably should not expect, one world in political and cultural patterns, but we could, with wise leadership and followership, find pleasantry, acceptance, peace and cooperation. This is possible without agreement on the realities of who we are and how we function – even with significant differences. Freedom has room for differences. Hospitality is related to spiritual grace, and service to others – major matters for Christians. Hospitality means there is: some humility (against arrogance); some respect (against rejection); some learning (against prejudice); some grace (against legalisms); and, relevant factors related to spiritual and physical concepts. I have observed the grace, in its beauty, peace, love, in missionary life (homes) and programming (groups) in countries of the world. Were that spiritual perception, crowning dignity and worth, brought to bear sincerely on international affairs, we would be improved in world communion – in prayer, peace, progress, problem solving. In summary, we would come closer to living, in the context of nations, as God would have us live in the natural setting. We need a vision of peace and love for the one and the many.
The education of the public may be, in the area of our concern here, on something of a very lengthy detour. We even have difficulty in finding our own intra-political context because we miss something important to the processes by which we live as a social people, each one special among many in the world. Jacqueline Stevens, of the New York Times, has been reported as noting the outrage of her fellow political scientists on the cancellation, in 2012, of meaningful grants for study in the field. It is claimed that it is not a science even that it failed spectacularly in what was done. None predicted: the fall of the Soviet Union, al–Quaida, or the Arab Spring. The story proceeds even with the projection that there would be a long period when there would be a string of Republican Presidents and Democratic Congresses. It didn’t happen. Philip Tetlock’s study, from the 1980s, showed that predictions of the political scientists were no better than chimps randomly throwing darts. Chimps proved up to the challenge. The future seems a gamble.
Stevens’ criticism may need some preliminary explanation, so to be clear about science. The point is that a reference to science is fraught with misunderstanding. Physical science can be rather firm in its conclusions if the process is carried out with care, but even then something is often missed. Science is, first of all a process, as we understand it. It begins with a perception (a theory); evidence (proof) is sought and collected that impinges upon the theory; experiments are made to gain information (methodical application); and, conclusions are made on the basis of the outcome of the process (affirmation of the theory or the limits of the theory, even its rejection based on the study). It is given authority of truth when others can replicate the study. It is doubted or denied if it can’t be replicated. This process may be applied to much that relates not only to the physical evidence, but to other contexts as well. It is less likely to be definitive for human behavior than for physical sciences. The second view of science is that it should be perceived only as physical. In this second perception, Stevens’ point holds. Problems may be addressed by using other life contexts of learning, such as what is gained by unscientific contexts, like hospitality, or love, or learning even by failure. There are the large contexts of human life, that can’t be replicated but they hold meaning for understanding and influence that are true and primary with God. If we learn by scientific process only we are too limited for life reality and experience. *Mark W. Lee, Sr. — 2016, 2020